-
1Academic Journal
Contributors: Исследование поддержано РНФ, проект № 20-18-00158 «Формальная философия аргументации и комплексная методология поиска и отбора решений спора», реализуемый в Санкт-Петербургском государственном университете.
Source: Logiko-filosofskie studii; Том 21, № 3 (2024); 130-133
Логико-философские штудии; Том 21, № 3 (2024); 130-133Subject Terms: логика аргументации, решение споров, аргументационный фреймворк, OWL, автоматический логический вывод, научное рецензирование
File Description: application/pdf
-
2Academic Journal
Authors: Кочетков, Дмитрий, orcid:0000-0001-7890-
Subject Terms: academic publishing, peer review, preprints, рецензирование, открытое рецензирование, препринты, open peer review, научные журналы
Relation: https://zenodo.org/records/14898403; oai:zenodo.org:14898403; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14898403
-
3Academic Journal
Subject Terms: научная коммуникация, рецензирование, искусственный интеллект, открытый доступ, догматизм, критическое мышление, самиздат, Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff, Aleksey Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff, scientific communication, Peer Review, Peer Review/ethics, Peer Review/methods, Peer Review/trends, Research, Peer Review/standards, Research/trends, Research/ethics, Research/standards, Health Care, Peer Review/legislation & jurisprudence, Research/methods, Research/legislation & jurisprudence, Health Care/methods, Artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence/economics, Artificial Intelligence/standards, Artificial Intelligence/trends, Artificial Intelligence/classification, Artificial Intelligence/ethics
Relation: https://zenodo.org/records/17163124; oai:zenodo.org:17163124; https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30170440
-
4Academic Journal
Subject Terms: Памфлет, Эссе, Aleksey Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff, Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff, научное рецензирование, открытая наука, искусственный интеллект, научная публикация, академическая бюрократия, рецензенты, свободное знание, критика, УДК: 001.38:004.896.821.161.1-4, ББК: Ч481.16:Ч484.2.Ш5(2Рос=Рус)6, LCC: Q180.5: PN1010, Научные публикации, Прочие научные материалы, Критические статьи, Pamphlets, Pamphlets/history, Pamphlet, Essays, Futures essay, Essay, scientific peer review, open science, Artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence/economics, Artificial Intelligence/standards, Artificial Intelligence/trends
Relation: https://zenodo.org/records/17149264; oai:zenodo.org:17149264; https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30153952
-
5Academic Journal
Authors: Кравцов, Геннадий, orcid:0009-0000-3405-
Subject Terms: искусственный интеллект, научное рецензирование, открытая наука, промпт-инжиниринг, ИИ-ассистент, самоанализ рукописи, объективная экспертиза, алгоритмическая оценка, препринт-культура, коллективное улучшение, АМКО
Relation: https://zenodo.org/records/17020322; oai:zenodo.org:17020322; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17020322
-
6Academic Journal
Authors: Dmitry, Kochetkov, orcid:0000-0001-7890-
Subject Terms: open science, Open Access Publishing, UNESCO, infrastructure, Citizen Science, traditional knowledge, article processing charges, Predatory Journals as Topic, Preprints as Topic, Peer Review, открытая наука, открытый доступ, ЮНЕСКО, инфраструктура, гражданская наука, традиционные знания, APC, хищнические журналы, препринты, рецензирование
Relation: https://zenodo.org/records/15707826; oai:zenodo.org:15707826; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15707826
-
7Academic Journal
Authors: Kochetkov, Dmitry, orcid:0000-0001-7890-
Subject Terms: научные коммуникации, eLIBRARY.RU, искусственный интеллект, ИИ, публикационная система, открытая наука, диссертации, рецензирование, SCIENCE INDEX, SCIENCE SPACE, Scholarly Communication, Artificial intelligence, AI, аналитика данных, Open Science, Peer Review, Publishing Ecosystem, Data Analytics, Academic Dissertations as Topic
Relation: https://zenodo.org/records/15591612; oai:zenodo.org:15591612; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15591612
-
8Academic Journal
Authors: Anna A. Gabets, А. А. Габец
Source: Science Editor and Publisher; Vol 9, No 2 (2024); 168-178 ; Научный редактор и издатель; Vol 9, No 2 (2024); 168-178 ; 2541-8122 ; 2542-0267
Subject Terms: развернутые комментарии, peer-reviewing, HAC RF journals list, Scopus, peer review form, detailed commentary, рецензирование, Перечень ВАК, шаблон рецензии, экспертная оценка
File Description: application/pdf
Relation: https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/425/289; Csiszar A. Peer review: troubled from the start. Nature. 2016;532:306–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a; Черныш М. Ф. Рецензирование в современной российской науке. Управление наукой: теория и практика. 2022;4(1):18–39. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.1.1; Manchikanti L., Kaye A. D., Boswell M., Hirsch J. A. Medical journal peer review: Process and bias. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):E1–E14. https://doi.org/10.36076/ppj/2015.18.E1; Dong M., Wang W., Liu X., Lei F., Luo Y. Status of peer review guidelines in international surgical journals: A cross-sectional survey. Learned Publishing. 2024;37(4):e1624. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1624; Aczel B., Szaszi B., Holcombe A. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2021;6:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2; Cheah P. Y., Piasecki J. Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers? The Lancet. 2022;399(10335):1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02804-X; Al-Khatib A., Teixeira da Silva J. A. Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research. Biochemia Medica. 2019;29(2):020201. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.020201; Chong S. W. Improving peer-review by developing reviewers’ feedback literacy. Learned Publishing. 2021;34(3):461–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1378; Chong S. W., Mason S. Demystifying the process of scholarly peer-review: An autoethnographic investigation of feedback literacy of two award-winning peer reviewers. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2021;8:266. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00951-2; Weaver M. L., Sundland R., Adams A. M., Faria I., Feldman H. A., Gudmundsdottiret H. et al. The art of peer review: Guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer. Seminars in Vascular Surgery. 2022;35(4):470–478. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002; Тихонова Е. В., Раицкая Л. К. Рецензирование как инструмент обеспечения эффективной научной коммуникации: традиции и инновации. Научный редактор и издатель. 2021;6(1):6–17. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17; Miller E., Weightman M. J., Basu A., Amos A., Brakoulias V. An overview of the peer review process in biome-; dical sciences. Australasian Psychiatry. 2024;32(3):247–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562241231460; Superchi C., Hren D., Blanco D., Rius R., Recchioni A., Boutron I., González J. A. Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6):e035604. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604; Garcia-Costa D., Squazzoni F., Mehmani B., Grimaldo F. Measuring the developmental function of peer review: a multi-dimensional, cross-disciplinary analysis of peer review reports from 740 academic journals. PeerJ. 2022;10:e13539. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13539; Malički M., Mehmani B. Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. PeerJ. 2024;12:e17514. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17514; Тихонова Е. В. Стратегии конструктивного взаимодействия с рецензентами: от рукописи к успешной публикации. Хранение и переработка сельхозсырья. 2024;32(4):8–17. https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2024.4.622; Kelly J., Sadeghieh T., Adeli K. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. The Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2014;25(3):227–243. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4975196/pdf/ejifcc-25-227.pdf (accessed: 05.12.2024).; DeLisi L. E. Editorial: Where have all the reviewers gone?: Is the peer review concept in crisis? Psychiatry Research. 2022;310:114454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114454; Tumin D., Tobias J. D. The peer review process. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S52–S58. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_544_18; Tikhonova E., Raitskaya L. Improving Submissions to Scholarly Journals via Peer Review. Journal of Language and Education. 2021;7(2):5–9. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.12686; Yu H., Liang Y., Xie Y. Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024;11:1557. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04088-w; Тихонова Е. В. Эффективные стратегии написания научных статей: обоснование пробела в существующем знании в предметной области. Хранение и переработка сельхозсырья. 2024;32(1):8–16. https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2024.1.561; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/425
-
9
-
10Academic Journal
Authors: Кочетков, Дмитрий, orcid:0000-0001-7890-
Subject Terms: academic publishing, peer review, preprints, рецензирование, открытое рецензирование, препринты, open peer review, научные журналы
Relation: https://zenodo.org/records/10560607; oai:zenodo.org:10560607; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10560607
-
11Academic Journal
Source: Science Editor and Publisher; Vol 8, No 2 (2023); 142-147 ; Научный редактор и издатель; Vol 8, No 2 (2023); 142-147 ; 2541-8122 ; 2542-0267
Subject Terms: рецензирование, publications, research report, writing, reviewing, публикации, исследовательский отчет, академическое письмо
File Description: application/pdf
Relation: https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/382/245; Ware M. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium; 2008. Available at: https://ils.unc.edu/courses/2015_fall/inls700_001/Readings/Ware2008-PRCPeerReview.pdf (accessed: 16.11.2022).; Provenzale J. M. Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success for publication. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2010;195(6):W382–W387. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5553; Morriswood B. The devil in the details (a short guide to writing figure legends). Total Internal Reflection; 2021. Available at: https://totalinternalreflectionblog.com/2021/08/11/the-devil-in-the-details-ashort-guide-to-writing-figure-legends (accessed: 16.11.2022).; Neagu R. C. How to respond to reviewers’ comments: a practical guide for authors. Language Editing; 2022. Available at: https://www.languageediting.com/respond-to-reviewers-comments (accessed: 16.11.2022).; Parletta N. How to respond to difficult or negative peer-reviewer feedback. Nature Index; 2021. Available at: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/how-to-respond-difficult-negative-peer-reviewerfeedback (accessed: 16.11.2022).; Cummings P., Rivara F. P. Responding to reviewers’ comments on submitted articles. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2002;156(2):105–107. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.156.2.105; Williams H. C. How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2004;51(1):79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.049; Tetzner R. Responding to peer reviewer comments: a free example letter. Proof-Reading-Service.com; 2021. Available at: https://www.proof-reading-service.com/en/blog/responding-peer-reviewer-commentsfree-example-letter (accessed: 16.11.2022).; Noble W. S. Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLoS Computational Biology. 2017;13(10):e1005730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730; Wiley Author Services. Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript. John Wiley & Sons. Available at: https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/stepby-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html (accessed: 16.11.2022).; Bik E. Peer review essentials for the beginning peer reviewer. Clarivate; 2015. Available at: https://clarivate.com/blog/peer-review-essentials-for-the-beginning-peer-reviewer (accessed: 16.11.2022).; Rojon C., Saunders M. N. Dealing with reviewers’ comments in the publication process. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. 2015;8(2):169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2015.1047463; Cochran A. Should you “revise and resubmit”? The Scholarly Kitchen; 2016. Available at: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/10/20/should-you-revise-and-resubmit (accessed: 16.11.2022).; Carnovale C. How to respond to reviewer comments: the CALM way. Elsevier; 2019. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/authors-update/how-to-respond-to-reviewer-comments-the-calm-way (accessed: 16.11.2022).; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/382
-
12Academic Journal
Source: Science Editor and Publisher; Vol 9, No 1 (2024); 86-95 ; Научный редактор и издатель; Vol 9, No 1 (2024); 86-95 ; 2541-8122 ; 2542-0267
Subject Terms: неустойчивый рынок препринтов, open science, peer review, philanthropy, preprint servers, unsustainable preprint market, открытая наука, рецензирование, благотворительность, серверы препринтов
File Description: application/pdf
Relation: https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/402/267; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/402/272; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Huang C.-K. K., Nazarovets M. Publishing embargoes and versions of preprints: impact on the dissemination of information. Open Information Science. 2024;8(1):20240002. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2024-0002; Sarabipour S., Debat H. J., Emmott E., Burgess S. J., Schwessinger B., Hensel Z. On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLoS Biology. 2019;17(2):e3000151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151; Lin J., Yu Y., Zhou Y., Zhou Z., Shi X. How many preprints have actually been printed and why: A case study of computer science preprints on arXiv. Scientometrics. 2020;124(1):555–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03430-8; Moshontz H., Binion G., Walton H., Brown B. T., Syed M. A guide to posting and managing preprints. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2021;4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211019948; Franco Iborra S., Polka J., Puebla I. Promoting constructive feedback on preprints with the FAST principles. eLife. 2022;11:e78424. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78424; Glymour M. M., Charpignon M.-L., Chen Y.-H., Kiang M. V. Preprints and the future of scientific publishing: In favor of relevance. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2023;192(7):1043–1046. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwad052; Soderberg C. K., Errington T. M., Nosek B. A. Credibility of preprints: An interdisciplinary survey of researchers. Royal Society Open Science. 2020;7(10):201520. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201520; Wang Z., Glänzel W., Chen Y. The impact of preprints in library and information science: An analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators. Scientometrics. 2020;125(2):1403–1423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03612-4; Xu F., Ou G., Ma T., Wang X. The consistency of impact of preprints and their journal publications. Journal of Informetrics. 2021;15(2):101153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101153; Fraser N., Mayr P., Peters I. Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: A survey of bioRxiv authors. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(11):e0274441. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274441; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Do peer-reviewed papers with a preprint version have an unfair metrics advantage? Journal of Food Science. 2023;88(7):2738–2739. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16707; Ni R., Waltman L. To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2024;75(6):749–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24880; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Dobránszki J. Preprint policies among 14 academic publishers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2019;45(2):162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.009; Klebel T., Reichmann S., Polka J., McDowell G., Penfold N., Hindle S., Ross-Hellauer T. Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(10):e0239518. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239518; Malički M., Jerončić A., Ter Riet G., Bouter L. M., Ioannidis J. P. A., Goodman S. N., Aalbersberg I. J. Preprint servers’ policies, submission requirements, and transparency in reporting and research integrity recommendations. JAMA. 2020;324(18):1901–1903. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.17195; Penfold N. C., Polka J. K. Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences. PLoS Genetics. 2020;16(4):e1008565. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008565; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Nazarovets S. Current ethics policies in 36 preprint servers: Relevance for academic medicine. Academic Medicine. 2024;99(2):129–130. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005507; Teixeira da Silva J. A., Nazarovets S. Most preprint servers allow the publication of opinion papers. Open Information Science. 2023;7(1):20220144. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0144; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Anonymity in anonymized peer review is incompatible with preprints. European Science Editing. 2022;48:e91290. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e91290; Blatch-Jones A. J., Recio Saucedo A., Giddins B. The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(9):e0291627. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291627; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Intellectual phishing, hidden conflicts of interest and hidden data: new risks of preprints. Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education. 2017;4(3):136–146. Available at: https://kadint.net/journals_n/1516278592.pdf (accessed: 10.05.2024).; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Preprints: ethical hazard or academic liberation? KOME. 2017;5(2):73–80. https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.2017.26; Teixeira da Silva J. A. The preprint wars. AME Medical Journal. 2017;2:74. https://doi.org/10.21037/amj.2017.05.23; COS. Product roadmap. 2024. Available at: https://www.cos.io/products/product-roadmap (accessed: 10.05.2024).; Nosek B. A., Shaw L. C., Errington T. M., Pfeiffer N., Mellor D. T., Brooks R. E., III, Rice A., Litherland D. M. Center for Open Science: Strategic Plan (version 3). 2022. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/x2w9h; COS. Mission. 2024. Available at: https://www.cos.io/about/mission (accessed: 10.05.2024).; APA. APA Journals Program Collaborates with Center for Open Science to Advance Open Science Practices in Psychological Research. 2017. Available at: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/08/open-science (accessed: 10.05.2024).; Narock T., Goldstein E. B. Quantifying the growth of preprint services hosted by the Center for Open Science. Publications. 2019;7(2):44. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020044; COS. The TOP Guidelines. 2024. Available at: https://www.cos.io/initiatives/top-guidelines (accessed: 10.05.2024).; Mallapaty S. Popular preprint servers face closure because of money troubles. Nature. 2020;578(7795):349. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00363-3; COS. OSF Preprints. 2024. Available at: https://www.cos.io/products/osf-preprints (accessed: 10.05.2024).; COS. Finances. 2024. Available at: https://www.cos.io/about/finances (accessed: 10.05.2024).; Teixeira da Silva J. A. The preprint debate: what are the issues? Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2018;74(2):162–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2017.08.002; COS. Six New Preprint Services Join a Growing Community Across Disciplines to Accelerate Scholarly Communication. 2017. Available at: https://www.cos.io/about/news/six-new-preprint-services-join-growing-community-across-disciplines-accelerate-scholarly-communication (accessed: 10.05.2024).; Smart P. The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals. Science Editing. 2022;9(1):79–84. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.269; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Should preprints and peer-reviewed papers be assigned equal status? Journal of Visceral Surgery. 2022;159(5):444–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2022.08.002; COS. Withdrawing a Preprint. 2024. Available at: https://help.osf.io/article/186-withdrawing-a-preprint (accessed: 10.05.2024).; Teixeira da Silva J. A. Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publishing Research Quarterly. 2016;32(1):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y; Mai N. C. Mathematical model of retractions: Facts, analysis and recommendations. 2022. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/r7kan (“silent retraction”, date unknown); Pourret O., Irawan D. E., Tennant J. P. On the potential of preprints in geochemistry: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Sustainability. 2020;12(8):3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083360; Penfold N. Lack of sustainability plans for preprint services risks their potential to improve science. 2023. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/03/02/lack-of-sustainability-plans-for-preprint-services-risks-their-potential-to-improve-science/ (accessed: 10.05.2024).; Ikeda A., Yonemitsu F., Yoshimura N., Sasaki K., Yamada Y. The Open Science Foundation clandestinely abused for malicious activities. PsyArXiv (preprint, not peer-reviewed; version 4: 7 January 2024). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xtuen; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/402
-
13Academic Journal
Source: Концепции. :3-15
Subject Terms: рецензирование, bibliometric, библиометрические, scientific articles, quantitative indicators, количественные показатели, научные статьи, управление, management
-
14Academic Journal
Source: Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine. 28:252-261
Subject Terms: об'єктивність висновку експерта, оценка заключения эксперта, 05 social sciences, assessment of the expert opinion, validity of the expert opinion, обоснованность заключения эксперта, appealing the expert opinion, объективность заключения эксперта, 16. Peace & justice, оцінка висновку експерта, 03 medical and health sciences, рецензування висновку експерта, 0302 clinical medicine, оскарження висновку експерта, обґрунтованість висновку експерта, обжалование заключения эксперта, reviewing the expert opinion, рецензирование заключения эксперта, 0509 other social sciences, objectivity of the expert opinion
File Description: application/pdf
-
15
-
16Academic Journal
Authors: Gerasymenko, A. G., Mazaraki, N. A., Duginets, G. V.
Source: Economic scope; № 141 (2019); 25-35
Экономическое пространство; № 141 (2019); 25-35
Економічний простір; № 141 (2019); 25-35Subject Terms: 13. Climate action, 9. Industry and infrastructure, академічна доброчесність, сліпе рецензування, відкрите рецензування, наукові публікації, 4. Education, academic integrity, blind review, open review, scientific publications, академическая добродетель, слепое рецензирование, открытое рецензирование, научные публикации, 16. Peace & justice
File Description: application/pdf
-
17Academic Journal
Authors: Pinchuk, Olga, Malytska, Iryna
Source: Теорія і практика управління соціальними системами; № 4 (2020): Теорія і практика управління соціальними системами; 64-80
Теория и практика управления социальными системами; № 4 (2020): ТЕОРИЯ И ПРАКТИКА УПРАВЛЕНИЯ СОЦИАЛЬНЫМИ СИСТЕМАМИ; 64-80
Theory and practice of social systems management; № 4 (2020): THEORY AND PRACTICE OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT; 64-80Subject Terms: електронне наукове фахове видання, редакційно-видавничий процес, рецензування, рецензент, редактор, 9. Industry and infrastructure, 4. Education, электронное научное специализированное издание, редакционно-издательский процесс, рецензирование, electronic scientific professional publication, editorial and publishing process, reviewing, reviewer, editor, 12. Responsible consumption
File Description: application/pdf
Access URL: http://tipus.khpi.edu.ua/article/download/2078-7782.2020.4.06/221962
http://tipus.khpi.edu.ua/article/download/2078-7782.2020.4.06/221962
http://tipus.khpi.edu.ua/article/view/2078-7782.2020.4.06
http://repository.kpi.kharkov.ua/bitstream/KhPI-Press/50498/1/TIPUSS_2020_4_Pinchuk_Efektyvna.pdf
http://repository.kpi.kharkov.ua/handle/KhPI-Press/50498
http://tipus.khpi.edu.ua/article/view/2078-7782.2020.4.06 -
18Report
-
19Academic Journal
Authors: S. M. Shakirova, С. М. Шакирова
Source: Science Editor and Publisher; Vol 8, No 1 (2023); 38-45 ; Научный редактор и издатель; Vol 8, No 1 (2023); 38-45 ; 2541-8122 ; 2542-0267
Subject Terms: Казахстан, retraction, academic journal, Thinking Skills and Creativity, unethical review, intermediaries, Kazakhstan, ретракция, научный журнал, неэтичное рецензирование, посредники
File Description: application/pdf
Relation: https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/354/224; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/354/237; Балякина Е. А. Retraction Watch – инструмент информирования научного сообщества об этических нарушениях в публикациях. Научный редактор и издатель. 2021;6(2):164–174. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-21-12; Elsevier journal retracts nearly 50 papers because they were each accepted on the “positive advice of one illegitimate reviewer report”. October 18, 2022. Available at: https://retractionwatch.com/2022/10/18/elsevier-journal-retracts-nearly-50-papers-because-they-were-each-accepted-on-the-positiveadvice-of-one-illegitimate-reviewer-report/ (accessed: 10.08.2023).; Шейпак С. А. Агентность автора научной статьи: от грамматики языка к грамматике социального. Образование и наука. 2023;25(7):44–68. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2023-7-44-68; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/354
-
20Academic Journal
Authors: D. M. Kochetkov, Д. М. Кочетков
Contributors: I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my wife Irina, as well as to my prominent colleagues Vladimir Pislyakov, Alexei Zheleznov, and Ludo Waltman, whose comments made this text much better. This study received no external funding, Хочу выразить глубокую благодарность моей жене Ирине, а также уважаемым коллегам Владимиру Пислякову, Алексею Железнову и Лудо Вальтману, чьи комментарии позволили сделать этот текст намного лучше. Данное исследование выполнено без внешнего финансирования
Source: Science Editor and Publisher; Vol 7, No 2 (2022); 185-190 ; Научный редактор и издатель; Vol 7, No 2 (2022); 185-190 ; 2541-8122 ; 2542-0267
Subject Terms: препринты, research evaluation, research assessment, scientific journals, scientific publications, open peer review, preprints, научные журналы, научные публикации, белый список журналов, открытое рецензирование
File Description: application/pdf
Relation: https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/290/198; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/290/199; Петти В. Трактат о налогах и сборах [пер. с англ.]. В кн.: Классика экономической мысли: Сочинения. М.: ЭКСМО-пресс; 2000. C. 5–76.; Соколов К., Порываева Л. Владелец базы Web of Science объяснил отключение доступа российским вузам. РБК. 2022. URL: https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/05/05/2022/6273a5a39a79477cc4ad2ed9 (дата обращения: 20.11.2022).; Kochetkov D. Priority-2030: the New Excellence Initiative from Russia. Leiden Madtrics. 2022. URL: https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/priority-2030-the-new-excellence-initiative-from-russia (accessed: 20.11.2022).; В России разработают новые подходы к оценке работы ученых и научных групп. ТАСС. Наука. 2022. URL: https://nauka.tass.ru/nauka/14046279 (дата обращения: 20.11.2022).; Эксперты обсудили создание Национальной системы оценки результативности научных исследований и разработок. Министерство науки и высшего образования Российской Федерации. 2022. URL: https://minobrnauki.gov.ru/press-center/news/novosti-ministerstva/48219/ (дата обращения: 20.11.2022).; Утвержден «Белый список» научных журналов. Российская академия наук. 2022. URL: https://new.ras.ru/activities/news/utverzhden-belyy-spisok-nauchnykh-zhurnalov/ (дата обращения: 20.11.2022).; Шеннон К. Математическая теория связи [пер. с англ.]. В кн.: Работы по теории информации и кибернетике. М.: Издательство иностранной литературы; 1963. С. 243–332.; Деннет Д. Разум от начала и до конца [пер. с англ.]. М.: Эксмо; 2021. 528 с.; Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., de Rijcke S., Rafols I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015:520;429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a; San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. DORA. 2012. URL: https://sfdora.org/read/ (accessed: 20.11.2022).; Journal Lists: How Useless Are They? Researchgate. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Journal_Lists_ How_Useless_Are_They (accessed: 18.12.2022).; Скрипник К.Д. Великая хартия университетов и исторические основания ее принципов. Известия Южного федерального университета Педагогические науки. 2015:(1);107–116.; Маслоу А. Мотивация и личность [пер. с англ.]. СПб.: Евразия; 1999. 479 с.; Preprint reviews & comments enabled journals to find dozens of new reviewers & editors. ASAPbio. 2022. URL: https://asapbio.org/preprint-reviewer-recruitment-network-phase-2 (accessed: 20.11.2022).; Zhang L., Sivertsen G. The new research assessment reform in China and its implementation. Scholarly Assessment Reports. 2020;2(1):3. URL: https://scholarlyassessmentreports.org/articles/10.29024/sar.15 (accessed: 20.11.2022).; Guide to the REF results. REF. 2021. URL: https://ref.ac.uk/guidance-on-results/guidance-on-ref-2021-results/ (accessed: 20.11.2022).; Медведева О.О., Дьяченко Е.Л. Белые списки журналов: международный опыт составления и роль в управлении наукой [Презентация]. 9-я Международная научно-практическая конференция «Научное издание международного уровня: мировые тенденции и национальные приоритеты», г. Москва; 24–27 мая 2021 г. URL: https://rassep.ru/academy/biblioteka/106130/ (дата обращения: 20.11.2022).; Patwardhan B., Nagarkar S., Gadre S.R., Lakhotia S.C., Katoch V.M., Moher D. A critical analysis of the “UGCapproved list of journals”. Current Science. 2018;114(6):1299–1303. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v114/i06/1299-1303; Bisaccio M. Announcement regarding brand-wide language changes, effective immediately. Cabells the Source. 2020. URL: https://blog.cabells.com/2020/06/08/announcement/ (accessed: 20.11.2022).; https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/290